Don't be an enemy

Not seeing the enmity and malice of the enemy and pointing the accusation towards the internal forces - be it country officials, defenders of the homeland, or even political rivals - will practically turn people into internal infantry and pave the way for the enemy's goals.

According to Ambassador Arjan, Mohammad Javad Akhwan wrote in a note in Javan newspaper:

Gholamhossein Karbaschi's recent statements in a TV program and his claim that the attack on several delinquent ships that intended to illegally cross the Strait of Hormuz on July 16 led to the failure of the Islamabad agreement, besides being devoid of reality, is a bitter sign of a kind of wrong activism in some politicians of the country.

First, this claim does not match the facts before the accident. Before that incident, between 28 Khordad and 16 July 1405, we witnessed the violation of obligations by America in the framework of the Islamabad Agreement. America's violation of the covenant was not a possibility, but a fact that was repeated over time. It is natural that the Islamic Republic of Iran cannot continue to unilaterally adhere to an agreement that the other party violates. Clear legal and political logic says that when an agreement is violated by the other party, the other party has the right to retaliate.

According to the same agreement, in the first 60 days, transit was to be carried out with arrangements approved by Iran and through a corridor in the north of the strait, which was approved by the Islamic Republic of Iran. In such a situation, the Americans intended to exploit Iran's internal events, including the funeral of the martyred leader, to violate the agreement; Therefore, what happened was not an arbitrary action, but a decision within the framework of the country's military hierarchy and based on the right of reciprocity.

Second, the more important point than this claim is the recurring pattern that some politicians face. Some of the political figures, mainly in the reformist current and among the Westernists, in important events and major national confrontations, point the finger of accusation towards themselves and accuse the Islamic Republic of Iran, while they do not shy away from exonerating the American side. Mr. Kerbaschi, in the same context, attributes the responsibility for the failure of the agreement to Iran, regardless of America's previous violations. Previously, people like Behzad Nabavi had made such a claim; Claims that have no basis in reality.

Unfortunately, it should be noted that this approach was seen earlier in previous events, including the JCPOA. When the Americans pulled out of the JCPOA with complete arrogance during Trump's first term, some people inside the country followed the same path and tried to blame Iran for America's withdrawal. During the election debates, former President Hassan Rouhani announced the unveiling of missile cities or writing slogans on missiles as an excuse for America to withdraw from the JCPOA, while it is clear that the issue of the JCPOA was not fundamentally a missile issue and the missile case is a separate issue from the JCPOA. It is a clear principle of law that one cannot withdraw from an agreement unrelated to that subject with an irrelevant excuse.

Third, this political behavior is rooted in a self-deprecating and self-accusing view. The movement that acquits the enemy and accuses the internal forces, the regime and the Islamic Republic of Iran, actually thinks that the only way to save the country is to surrender to the enemy. In this view, the enemy is assumed to be so powerful that there is no other choice but to surrender to him.

Of course, there is another similar error in some other political forces, who sometimes accuse the country's officials, including the heads of the forces, of false claims and psychological operations of the enemy of trust. This approach is also against national interests and national security.

Such attitudes are not only inconsistent with the objective facts, but actually lead to the strengthening of the enemy's front. In a national confrontation and in a conflict between Iran and a foreign enemy, the priority is clear: defending national interests and standing by our nation and homeland. Even if one disagrees with the official policy in his analysis, strengthening the enemy in such a confrontation means playing on his ground; Although he considers himself a believer in the national cause. In such a situation, someone who accuses the Islamic Republic of Iran and acquits the enemy does not really know the national affairs or his position in the power equation. Not seeing the enmity and malice of the enemy and pointing the accusation towards the internal forces - be it country officials, defenders of the homeland, or even political rivals - will practically turn people into internal infantry and pave the way for the enemy's goals, even if they don't realize it themselves. Exonerating the enemy paves the way for the enemy's future sinister intentions.